[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)] [Notices] [Pages 33148-33149] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-16282] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE Request for Third-Country Antidumping Investigation of Sodium Azide From Japan AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative. ACTION: Request for written comments. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On March 11, 1996 the Government of Canada, through its embassy in the United States, filed with the United States Trade Representative (``USTR'') a request for the initiation of a third- country antidumping duty investigation with respect to sodium azide from Japan, pursuant to section 783 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1677n). The petition attached to the request alleges that imports of sodium azide from Japan are being sold in the United States at less than fair value (i.e., dumped), and that an industry in Canada is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of these imports. The petition alleges that ICI Canada Inc. is the sole Canadian producer of sodium azide. USTR invites comments from the public on the appropriateness of initiating a section 783 investigation with respect to sodium azide from Japan, on the substantive and procedural standards USTR should establish for the determinations of the Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission (``ITC'') in such an investigation, if initiated, and on other issues that may be relevant. DATES: Written comments from the public are due on or before 12 noon, on July 26, 1996. ADDRESSES: Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Kane, Associate General Counsel, (202) 395-6800. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 232 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 added section 783 to the Tariff Act of 1930 concerning antidumping petitions by third countries. Under section 783, the government of a WTO member may file with USTR a petition requesting that an investigation be conducted to determine if imports from another country are being sold in the United States at less than fair value, and an industry in the petitioning country is materially injured by reason of those imports. After receiving a petition, USTR must consult with Commerce and ITC, provide an opportunity for public comment, and determine whether to initiate an investigation. Before initiating any investigation, USTR must obtain the approval of the WTO Council for Trade in Goods. The URAA Statement of Administrative Action (H.R. Doc. 103-316, vol. l1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 845-6) (``SAA'') notes that, in determining whether to initiate an investigation, USTR will take into account whether the petitioning country provides an equivalent opportunity to the United States to seek the initiation of an antidumping investigation. Should USTR determine to initiate an investigation, it must request Commerce and the ITC to make determinations with respect to dumping and injury, respectively. If both determinations are affirmative, Commerce must issue an antidumping order in accordance with section 736 of the Tariff Act. USTR is to specify the substantive and procedural requirements for the Commerce and ITC determinations. The SAA indicates that USTR is to develop consistent, transparent standards of general applicability that provide meaningful guidance to Commerce and ITC, while according them the necessary flexibility to develop appropriate procedures. With regard to procedural issues, USTR is to specify deadlines, persons who may participate in the investigation, and the applicability of requirements such as hearings and exchanges of information under administrative protective order. With regard to substantive issues, USTR is to specify the extent to which existing antidumping standards will apply, particularly with regard to the ITC's injury determination. In the SAA, the Administration stated its intention that the standards should, to a considerable extent, permit the ITC to incorporate by analogy existing standards concerning injury to a U.S. industry, but also noted that certain concepts, such as regional industry, may have little applicability in third-country investigations. On January 16, 1996, an antidumping petition was filed on behalf of American Azide Corporation, the sole U.S. producer of sodium azide, pursuant to section 732 of the Tariff Act of 1930. [[Page 33149]] The petition alleges that sodium azide from Japan is being sold in the United States at dumped prices and that an industry in the United States is materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of such imports. On March 1, 1996, the ITC issued an affirmative preliminary injury determination. 61 FR 10596 (March 14, 1996). Commerce is scheduled to issue a preliminary investigation of dumping by August 13, 1996. 61 FR 26878 (May 29, 1996). Public Comment Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the following issues: (A) whether it is appropriate to initiate a third-country antidumping investigation on sodium azide from Japan; including as part of this issue are, inter alia, the relevance of the pending antidumping investigation on sodium azide from Japan, and the extent to which Canada provides an opportunity to the United States to seek an antidumping investigation in Canada on behalf of a U.S. industry. (B) if an investigation were initiated, what procedural and substantive standards USTR should establish for Commerce's and ITC's determinations required by section 783; persons submitting comments on this issue may wish simply to use as a starting point the existing standards for antidumping investigations on behalf of a U.S. industry, and specify how the procedural and substantive standards for a third- country antidumping investigation should differ. (C) any other issues relevant to the request for the initiation of a third-country antidumping investigation on sodium azide from Japan. Requirements for Submissions Comments are due no later than 12 noon, July 26, 1996. Comments must be in English and provided in twenty copies to: Sodium Azide Antidumping, Room 223, USTR, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508. Comments will be placed in a file (Docket 783-1) open to public inspection, except for confidential business information exempt from public inspection. (Confidential business information must be clearly marked ``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' in a contrasting color ink at the top of each page on each of 20 copies, and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. The nonconfidential summary shall be placed in the Docket which is open to public inspection.) USTR will generally apply to the standards set out in 15 C.F.R. Sec. 2006.13 (Information Open to Public Inspection) and Sec. 2006.15 (Information Exemption from Public Inspection) with respect to comments received. Jennifer A. Hillman, General Counsel. [FR Doc. 96-16282 Filed 6-25-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3190-01-M